A 12-year-old girl in Toledo, Ohio, receives an email from her Internet provider regarding a subpoena. She doesn't understand it, so she ignores it. One year later, her family is formally served with a lawsuit naming her mom as a defendant. The suit alleges that the mother, who was the ISP account holder, illegally downloaded 10 copyrighted music files from a file-sharing network and seeks damages for each song. The plaintiff record companies offer to settle for $6,000.
Points to consider:
- The 12-year-old girl downloaded the songs, but she didn't know she was doing anything illegal. She found the files on a site that was free to access, but there were no warning signs that the bands didn't authorize the site. She's a huge fan of these bands – she owns all of their CDs and just wanted to hear the new songs.
- The Mom doesn't believe that she should be sued. She can't afford to pay the $6,000 settlement fee, and she can't afford to hire an attorney to fight the case in court. (The attorney she spoke with asked for a $10,000 retainer just to get started.)
- The plaintiff record companies claim that this is theft from their hardworking artists and that making the mother pay the settlement fee will deter others from illegally downloading copyrighted music from the Internet.
- Popular Music Artist/Band A, whose music the girl copied, says that band members should be paid for their creative works; fans should buy their CDs and not get away with piracy. Making music is the band's job, and musicians need to be compensated; they're losing money when fans illegally download their music.
- Popular Music Artist/Band B, whose music the girl copied, has a different perspective and supports music file-sharing technology, even encouraging fans to download its latest album of MP3s for free or for whatever they want to pay. Band B believes P2P file-sharing helps promote its music and encourages an even wider spectrum of music to be heard. Band B also allows its fans to remix its songs as long as the use is noncommercial.
In your initial discussion post of at least 250 words, answer the following questions:
- Could the above scenario be true?
- Which of the stakeholders is right, if anyone? Why?
- Are the views of the other stakeholders legitimate? Why or why not?
- How do the students feel about P2P file-sharing technologies?
- Is P2P technology itself illegal?Is P2P technology just for music and movie file-sharing? (NASA is using BitTorrent to distribute massive photographs; BitTorrent is used to cheaply distribute the Linux operating systems that are free to users.)
- If this case was to go to trial, who would win? Why?
1. This scenario is absolutely viable. There have been many cases throughout the years of people being sued over illegal music downloads. The settlement fees can range from $6,000 to $600,000, with varying scenarios.2. Legally, the plaintiff record companies and Band A both have a rightful claim to their work. It's within their legal right to require compensation and insist on the proper methods of purchasing their music. However, ethically and morally, I believe that Band B has a better perspective. Furthermore, this seems to be the more common perspective today, making it increasingly more difficult for record companies to continue to stake their claims. Independent artists are more often leaning to a pay-what-you-want model, not only because it's more common, but because their goal is to have fun and make music that people will enjoy, rather than make money. And their perspective encourages their fans, often leading them to pay good amounts anyway in order to support the artists they love for their ideas as well as their music. As for the mother and child, the mother is being rightfully sued, and has a responsibility for her child, who was simply uninformed and unsupervised. I understand their situation, but I cannot sympathize.3. Again, the record companies and Band A both have their legal claim, simply because of the copyright laws set in place. And Band B has a very legitimate view, one that I agree with.4. I, as a student, think that P2P technology is simply that, technology. It can be used more effectively for different means but ultimately it's simply a new form of technology that can be used for a variety of purposes, just like flight, nuclear energy, or the internet.5. No, and no. There is nothing wrong with P2P tech and it has many other purposes as well as music and movie sharing. BitTorrent and .torrents are excellent for sharing large files of any kind. Yes music and movies fit into this category well, but so do books, video games, massive amounts of scientific research, operating systems, or things like NASA's photographs. .torrents simply have a negative connotation associated with them.6. For all intents and purposes, the law would probably win. There is a strong legal claim, and the record companies and bands have a rightful claim to their compensation. However, with that said, I believe that the popular opinion is shifting more and more to the idea of more open sharing, and more freedom in terms of music distribution. Maybe not now, but certainly in 5 or 10 years, I think there could easily be enough jury members who agree with the concept of open music sharing, and enough independent artists in the business who simply wouldn't care; they would be encouraging and supporting of their fans, not petty and self seeking.
Finally, in summary, I want to apologize for the length of this discussion. This is a topic that I care a lot about, and am very concerned with. While I absolutely respect the law, I also understand that times, technology, and public opinions are and always will be changing. The current record model is outdated. If it doesn't change, then the fact that independent artists will soon outweigh the big names will certainly change the legal aspect of music sharing. People will support the artists who encourage their fans and create music for the sake of creating music, not to make themselves (or rather the record companies) richer. And using "scare tactics" because the law can't properly uphold itself is not becoming either, despite the fact that a legal claim exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment